It has been suggested by one of Edward's biographers that George and Mary had been told that Edward my be sterile because of orchitis caused by mumps. I'm inclined to think that at some point during puberty, for whatever reason, his physical, emotional and mental development became retarded, perhaps explaining why he was given to speaking without weighing up the consequences his words would have. Despite Edward vii's friendship with Jews, most of the aristocracy were anti and would probably have applauded what Hitler was doing, albeit, covertly, something Edward vii never learned the meaning of. We have him, as an adult, displaying supreme ignorance at a dinner party by asking fellow guests if they'd ever heard of the "Bronts." We have his letters in which the standard never reaches higher that that of a twelve year old. I think he'd long been seen as being a loose cannon and reasons had long been sought to ease him from a throne which he'd probably never wanted to sit on and Wallis served everybody's purpose..

Edwards cause is not helped by the views he expressed after abdication. Even after visiting Hitler and even during WWII while serving as Governor in the Bahamas he did not condemn Hitler or the Nazis. He did not seem to learn the lessons of history. His abdication was the best thing that could have happened to the Windsors and the UK. As someone once said we should have erected statues to Wallis Warfield Spencer Simpson and thanked her for taking him away.

I think it would still be the present Queen. She'd only be celebrating her 41st year on the throne, however, since 'Uncle David' didn't pass on until 1972, 20 years after brother Albert(King George VI).

I think it would still be the present Queen. She'd only be celebrating her 41st year on the throne, however, since 'Uncle David' didn't pass on until 1972, 20 years after brother Albert(King George VI).

I was thinking, Who to say that Queen Elizabeth would not have came to the throne earlier (but after 1952) or later? Yes She would still be Queen today, the War took a toll on George VI (like George V) who was also a heavy smoker and that had to do partly with why he died young (56), Edward VIII didn't have to deal with the stress of the war and lived into his late 70s (His father died at age 70). Edward did smoke also (but I don't think like his Father and Grandfather). If Edward VII had to deal with the stress of the war, his Brother would not have had to deal with the burden would have able to live more quietly with his family and he probably would have lived longer, Edward VIII may have died younger then he lived like his brother and George VI may have lived linger then he actually did with the stress of the war and smoking. He would have became King much later and Elizabeth would have have been able to enjoy family life more quietly and be more on hands, She may not have became Queen until After Edward had turned 18 that is if Her father had lived to the same age as his mother Mary.

Obviously it hard to say, She would have still became Queen but it may have been later then 1972 if Edward VIII had stayed on the throne. But there also the possibility that he marries someone else Nd has kids.but we are assuming he says single and hS no heirs.

A recent autobiography from last year of DofW's King George VI also dealt with his trials of dealing with the DofW. The book mentioned that Edward had indeed had a bad reaction to his illness as a youth which may have emotionally stunted him. I thought the book was very well written and sourced. Wasn't dry reading, in fact I found it absolutely fascinating how the life stories of the two brothers were so intertwined.

The DoW was a spoiled little boy who never grew up. He bedeviled his brother and deeply resented him all his life. He spent his time in exile finding new ways to embarrass his King and his Country..

A recent autobiography from last year of DofW's King George VI also dealt with his trials of dealing with the DofW. The book mentioned that Edward had indeed had a bad reaction to his illness as a youth which may have emotionally stunted him. I thought the book was very well written and sourced. Wasn't dry reading, in fact I found it absolutely fascinating how the life stories of the two brothers were so intertwined.

The DoW was a spoiled little boy who never grew up. He bedeviled his brother and deeply resented him all his life. He spent his time in exile finding new ways to embarrass his King and his Country.
.

The way I've always understood the DoW was that he was a lot like Edward VII, Albert Victor, or even the younger sons of George III when they were growing up. Immature, irresponsible, and hard to pin down but with the potential for something - we saw the "something" mature in Edward VII when he became king, and in ways in George III's sons when they entered into the race for the heir. Albert Victor died before having that chance, while the DoW was influenced away from achieving that.

George VI, on the other hand, and his father as well, both seemed to more follow the more mature example of Albert.

Say King Edward VIII had married someone other than Wallis Simpson.
Whether it be an aristocrat's daughter like the Queen Mother or Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester, a Russian Princess (if the Imperial Family had've been allowed to live in England) or some minor European Princess.
If he did marry and have children, then HM the Queen would have remained as Princess Elizabeth of York.

For whatever reason this is a very interesting scenario. At some stage she would have met Prince Philip of Greece and from all reports she was smitten with him from the start. Would there have been less objection to this marriage by the British Establishment/Duke and Duchess of York? The Queen's Uncle the Duke of Kent married Princess Marina of Greece in the 30's so I think we can safely assume that the Greek Royal Family was considered to be an acceptable place for British Royals to find a spouse.

If Elizabeth and Philip had married, would she have become Princess Philip of Greece? Philip was educated in Scotland and I remember reading somewhere that he spent his summers with his maternal grandmother, the Marchioness of Milford Haven? I also remember seeing in a documentary that Philip's mother felt that there was a chance he could become King of Greece one day. He apparently does not speak Greek, but I wonder if the marriage to a British Princess might have helped his prospects (I'm not too familiar with Greek Politics but it seems that in both wars the UK and Greece were on the same side and Greece did depend on the UK for a lot of support).
Would it be feasible that Elizabeth and Philip might have been seen as an alternative King and Queen of Greece instead of King Constantine etc?

If not, and Philip and Elizabeth married and stayed in Britain would he have had to renounce his Greek Titles? I doubt he would have been made Duke of Edinburgh if Elizabeth wasn't going to be Queen. Angus Ogilvy was offered an Earldom when he married Princess Alexandra of Kent, who would have held the same rank as Granddaughter/Niece of the Sovereign as Elizabeth had she not have become Queen. Perhaps Philip would have been made Earl of Edinburgh?
In order for this to be achieved, would Philip had still have to renounce his Greek Titles?

Finally, would the still have had the children/named the children in the same way as they did in this scenario? The ten year age gap between Anne and Andrew seems to be a result of Elizabeth becoming Queen and establishing herself during the 50's. Would they still have had four children if Elizabeth wasn't Queen?

Let's imagine that Kate Middleton was the great granddaughter of Edward, therefore barred from the line of succession herself. If she went on to marry heir to the throne Prince William, and gave birth to baby George, would he also be illegible to succeed to the throne?

Let's imagine that Kate Middleton was the great granddaughter of Edward, therefore barred from the line of succession herself. If she went on to marry heir to the throne Prince William, and gave birth to baby George, would he also be illegible to succeed to the throne?

I don't think so. His right to the throne would be derived from his father, not his mother. It's like the Queen's children, they follow their mother in the line of succession, not their father, although the Duke of Edinburgh is in the line of succession to the British Throne - he is 600-something if memory serves me right.

__________________“If a thousand thrones I had, I would give a thousand thrones to get the slaves free in Brazil."

Princess Isabel (1846-1921), Princess Imperial and Regent of the Empire of Brazil, after she signed the Golden Law, in 1888, abolishing slavery in Brazil.

Let's imagine that Kate Middleton was the great granddaughter of Edward, therefore barred from the line of succession herself. If she went on to marry heir to the throne Prince William, and gave birth to baby George, would he also be illegible to succeed to the throne?

No more than William is by being a descendant of James II through illegitimate means.

The idea is that no one can take their claim to the throne from Edward VIII (or from any illegitimate lines). It doesn't actually mean that if you can trace your ancestry to him you are barred from the succession - if you're descended through one line that is excluded but through another line that isn't excluded you just take your spot in the succession from the not-excluded line.

Let's imagine that Kate Middleton was the great granddaughter of Edward, therefore barred from the line of succession herself. If she went on to marry heir to the throne Prince William, and gave birth to baby George, would he also be illegible to succeed to the throne?

Isn't this thread where Edward doesn't abdicate? If so, his descendants if legitimate are on the British throne instead of his brother descendants. That is if there is still a British throne. Maybe part of Germany. With Edward VIII on the throne during the war, maybe the British fall during the Battle of Britain.

one - he doesn't abdicates, has an appropriate marriage and has legitimate heirs who would now be on the throne

two - he doesn't abdicate but also doesn't marry - who then would be the monarch - obviously Elizabeth but we wouldn't have probably had George VI

three - he still abdicates but marries another woman who has a right to the throne in their own right - their children would take their claim from their mother - so instead of being barred would be following their mother's line e.g. if mother was 400th then they would be 401, 402 etc

I don't think so. His right to the throne would be derived from his father, not his mother. It's like the Queen's children, they follow their mother in the line of succession, not their father, although the Duke of Edinburgh is in the line of succession to the British Throne - he is 600-something if memory serves me right.

They can actually claim it through both their parents but obviously they take their position from the highest of their parents - just as Elizabeth herself took her right from her descent from George V rather than Queen Mary (who herself was in the line of succession as a legitimate descendant of George III).

one - he doesn't abdicates, has an appropriate marriage and has legitimate heirs who would now be on the throne

two - he doesn't abdicate but also doesn't marry - who then would be the monarch - obviously Elizabeth but we wouldn't have probably had George VI

three - he still abdicates but marries another woman who has a right to the throne in their own right - their children would take their claim from their mother - so instead of being barred would be following their mother's line e.g. if mother was 400th then they would be 401, 402 etc

Scenario one - it's the descendants of Edward

scenario 2- it's ends with Elizabeth on the throne but maybe the lifespans of David and Bertie are changed. David is the wartime King which probably cuts years from his life or is hit by the bomb that hits BP that almost got his brother and wife in real life. Bertie as the heir to throne is sent to Canada with his family and/ or kept out of the fighting like David was in WWI. This prolonged his life and may outlive his brother to become King on his own.

Scenario 3- No one Edward could have married in 1936 with rights to the throne could have a realistic shot at the throne. Even if he married his sister Mary, the descendants of his 3 brothers would still be ahead of them. Which now is 40 to 50 people? Plus who he wanted to marry caused the govt to disprove of Wallis. Would the govt disprove of him marrying a cousin? No, because cousins marrying cousins was normal for the royals. Marrying aristocrats' daughters like Bertie did wasn't the norm. So in this scenario, David still has to marry Wallis to force the abdication and give up his children's rights and then Wallis dies and he remarried someone with British throne rights. However, the woman would still need approval from the British monarch/govt to wed according to the Royal Marriage Act. It would have to be given or the woman would lose her right and the children's rights as well.

No more than William is by being a descendant of James II through illegitimate means.

The idea is that no one can take their claim to the throne from Edward VIII (or from any illegitimate lines). It doesn't actually mean that if you can trace your ancestry to him you are barred from the succession - if you're descended through one line that is excluded but through another line that isn't excluded you just take your spot in the succession from the not-excluded line.

I disagree with you. According to the Abdication Act it is quite clear that no descendant of Edward can have rights to the throne. Thus, even being the eldest child of a monarch, while still being a descendant of Edward VIII on another side of the family, cannot give succession rights. In a very absurd case of Kate being a descendant of Edward VIII and thus barred from succession by the said act, a new act of parliament would be needed to clear the case and let Prince George and any further descendants of Kate and William to succeed to the throne through any other lines of descent than the Edward's one, or specifically through Prince William. This would be some sort of an act that acknowledges George's rights to the throne through his father, despite him being a subject to the Abdication Act as a descendant of Edward through Kate (which would automatically barred him from succession!).

To sum up, there would be needed an act of parliament simply to remove those provisions of the Abdication Act from George and any further descendants of Kate & William that forbid his rights to the throne.

I disagree with you. According to the Abdication Act it is quite clear that no descendant of Edward can have rights to the throne. Thus, even being the eldest child of a monarch, while still being a descendant of Edward VIII on another side of the family, cannot give succession rights. In a very absurd case of Kate being a descendant of Edward VIII and thus barred from succession by the said act, a new act of parliament would be needed to clear the case and let Prince George and any further descendants of Kate and William to succeed to the throne through any other lines of descent than the Edward's one, or specifically through Prince William. This would be some sort of an act that acknowledges George's rights to the throne through his father, despite him being a subject to the Abdication Act as a descendant of Edward through Kate (which would automatically barred him from succession!).

To sum up, there would be needed an act of parliament simply to remove those provisions of the Abdication Act from George and any further descendants of Kate & William that forbid his rights to the throne.

I don't agree that it clearly says that. Yes, Edward said that he renounced the throne for himself and his descendants, but that's a pretty standard renouncement and I think it's intended to mean that Edward's descendants couldn't claim the throne through their descent from Edward. We have seen other individuals who are descended from royals in a manner that does not grant them succession rights succeed because they're descended from other royals in a way that does grant them succession rights - William, for example, is descended from both Charles II and James II through illegitimate lines (and Catholics to boot), but that doesn't invalidate his claim through his grandmother.

There are many British royals who have succession rights through many lines. The idea that being descended in the wrong way via one line will exclude you from having a claim in every other line is absurd.

I don't agree that it clearly says that. Yes, Edward said that he renounced the throne for himself and his descendants, but that's a pretty standard renouncement and I think it's intended to mean that Edward's descendants couldn't claim the throne through their descent from Edward. We have seen other individuals who are descended from royals in a manner that does not grant them succession rights succeed because they're descended from other royals in a way that does grant them succession rights - William, for example, is descended from both Charles II and James II through illegitimate lines (and Catholics to boot), but that doesn't invalidate his claim through his grandmother.

There are many British royals who have succession rights through many lines. The idea that being descended in the wrong way via one line will exclude you from having a claim in every other line is absurd.

Quote:

(2)His Majesty, His issue, if any, and the descendants of that issue, shall not after His Majesty's abdication have any right, title or interest in or to the succession to the Throne...

Ish, IT DOES clrearly says that.
It's law and its stiupulations are very clear, so there's no place for any intentions here. Having an another claim to the throne, I mean from an another line of descent than Edward VIII's does not replace or undo what the Abdication Act, let's say it again - clearly says. It just can't. Law is law, an an act of Parliament is the highest law. Thus, there would be needed an amendement of the said Act or an entire new act that replaces the Abdication Act or in any other way settles the question of succession of all Edward VIII's descendants (or any particular person or someone's all future descendants) who have another claims to the throne.

I don't say that being descended from Edward VIII and Electress Sophia of Hanover through an another line would disqualify any person from succession, but the Abdication Act of Edward VIII does that. That person would still have his or her claims, but it would be unlawful because the said Act prohibits them.
What matters here for a possible Prince George descended from Edward VIII from his mother's line, legally, is simply being a descendant of the King, thus a subject to the provisions of the Abdication Act.

Of course, the royals' descent from illegitimate or morganatic issue of monarchs does not give them rights to the throne (in some cases, morganatic children could have legal claims to the throne), but they derive their claims from another, legal and dynastic lines. There is no law that bars someone's other claims just because he or she comes also from an unlawful line at the same time. But there is a law that bars those who are (would be) descended from Edward VIII, with no exceptions or conditions like being descended also from an another royal, from the succession. Read the act, it is quite evident.

It stands to reason too that if Edward VIII had never abdicated, there would have been no Abdication Act that would bar any of his descendants from succeeding to the throne. They possibly could have passed an Act of Parliament disbarring any descendants of Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson from succeeding to the throne but that's a whole other ball of wax.

It is also kind of interesting to think that if Thelma Furness (wife of Marmaduke Furness, 1st Viscount Furness and 2nd Baron Furness and at one time mistress of the then Prince of Wales) had divorced her husband and married David, CNN's Anderson Cooper could boast that his great aunt was Queen Consort.

As it turned out, Thelma introduced Wallis to David and the rest is the history we now know.

__________________

__________________
“We live in a world where we have to hide to make love, while violence is practiced in broad daylight.”
~~~ John Lennon ~~~